An issue with considerable weighting in the AFL recently, has been the argument that the fixture list needs to be equitable.
The current set up determines that all teams play 22 games each, once against every team and then five double-ups.
It is a significant issue, highlighted by the survey results published in last week’s AFL Record.
Out of the 23,000 surveyed, 30 per cent said they would address equalisation of the fixture if they were CEO. Another question was if you could change one thing about the game, and 15 per cent replied an equitable fixture.
The rules implemented last year that determines fixtures based on a team’s finishing position can be read here.
Teams like the Fremantle Dockers and Sydney Swans, and even Adelaide, have all had what has been seen as an easy finish to the season. Many teams predicted prior to last round (and earlier) these teams would go undefeated, leaving the Swans and Dockers likely one and two respectively and Adelaide with a high chance of making the finals.
What does it matter when a team plays different sides in the competition? You still need to perform to get the wins, week-in week-out.
There are issues with suggesting any team has an easier draw than another. Firstly, it is an insult to their opposition. This can only be more clearly identified with the St Kilda’s upset win over the Dockers on the weekend.
Football is a week-to-week basis, hence why form can suddenly mean nothing. If a team shows up expecting to win, even subconsciously as certain Dockers admitted, than they can be beaten. Saints also played their best football of the season.
When someone comments that one team has a more favourable or harder draw than another team, they mostly rely on hindsight. We only know that teams are performing well due to the current season’s results.
Carlton and St Kilda are two teams recording a poor season. Richmond either bombed out this season, or last year was an apparition. Regardless, many would have banked them to be a certain top eight prospect when the fixtures were announced. This shows the issue with arguing a team has an easy fixture from year-to-year. Results change as the club changes their plan for their team, personnel and various de-listings, among other things.
A fellow Roarer rightly identified that these are professional athletes with some of the best fitness coaches in the world. A day’s rest should not make the difference between winning and losing. Collingwood has a very god record in the Anzac Day clashes for example, where they have to back up very quickly. Occasionally there is a difference in the length of breaks between games, but there are no complaints from the clubs – they man up and play.
One of the best cases for arguing draws are difficult to plan, is the example of West Coast from 2010 to 2011. In 2010, they finished as wooden spooners with a mere four wins. Few would have given them much hope in 2011, however they improved to 18 wins the next season.
At the start of the year, everyone would have wanted to draw West Coast twice as they were seen as easy. By the end of the year, most would have been regretting that hope and perhaps realising that every footy game is tough.
Teams vary and can either fall or rise dramatically. Therefore, an equitable draw is highly difficult to produce. Furthermore, the fixture list is complete before the majority of de-listings, drafts and other recruitment opportunities occur.
For example, after the Swans received Lance Franklin last year they launched into the premiership frame. By Round 4 of this season, they had dropped to over $10. Now they once more sit as firm favourites. Teams performances can change rapidly.
There are other issues other than simply giving each team an equal as their second runner-up. Teams have contracts with the stadiums at which they play that dictate they play a certain number of games at each stadium. When each club’s contract needs to be met it is an overwhelming task. When each club also needs to play 11 home games and 11 away games, the realisation is that it’s an enormous task.
To fixture a perfect draw is impossible. There are too many credentials to be met, and too much analysis that cannot truly tell the tale of a season. Prophecies made as a result of a draw rather than a team’s ability are disgraceful. Effort needs to be put in each week to win.
Spare a thought for the men making the fixture list. It is a difficult task in itself, let alone to produce an equitable fixture.
Floreat Pica
Guest
True, but ultimately this is the only way to get closer to the ideal fixture. In 50 years each team (up to six more as population reaches 30+million) plays each other once (with a single extra derby round). No teams lost. No league-eroding conference systems. If St Kilda could get back to a refurbished Junction Oval and give a second option for a mid-high capacity inner-suburban oval in Melbourne we could sneak an extra two weeks in to release some time pressure and maybe increase TV revenue too withoit the silly staggered start we had this year.. Dreaming of the day when we have a return to boutique traditional homeground cauldrons to host low-drawing clubs from other cities.. Princes, Punt, Vic, Western Oval and Junction oval run like the cattery- MCG clear for blockbusters..
PF
Guest
If the fixture is to be 22 home and away matches per season for each team with some form of equal fixture with 18 teams, the fixture could be played over a four year cycle, being: Year 1. 1. Each team plays every other team once. (17 matches) 2. Each team could play a derby match. For example-Adelaide v Port Adelaide, Fremantle v West Coast, Brisbane v Gold Coast, GWS v Sydney, Carlton v Collingwood, Richmond v Essendon, Hawthorn v Geelong, Western Bulldogs v St Kilda, Melbourne v North Melbourne. (1 match) 3. Each team could play 4 teams from the remaining 16 teams that they have not played twice from 1. & 2. (4 matches) For example, for 22 matches to be played by Adelaide-Adelaide plays every team once 17 matches), Port Adelaide again (1 match) and could play Fremantle, West Coast, Brisbane & Gold Coast again (4 matches). Year 2. 1. & 2. from Year 1 apply for 18 rounds. For the remaining 4 matches each teams plays four teams from 3. in Year 1 they did not play in Year 1. For example, for 22 matches to be played by Adelaide – Adelaide plays every team once (17 matches), Port Adelaide again (1 match) and could play GWS, Sydney, Carlton & Collingwood again (4 matches). Year 3. 1. & 2. from Year 1 apply for 18 rounds. For the remaining 4 rounds each team plays four teams from 3. in Year 1 that they did not play in Year 1 & Year 2. For example, for 22 matches to be played by Adelaide – Adelaide plays every team once (17 matches), Port Adelaide again (1 match) and could play Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn & Geelong again (4 matches). Year 4. 1. & 2. from Year 1 apply for 18 rounds. For the remaining 4 rounds each team plays four teams from 3. in Year 1 that they did not play in Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. For example, for 22 matches to be played by Adelaide – Adelaide plays every team once (17 matches), Port Adelaide again (1 match) and could play Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne & North Melbourne again (4 matches). Over a period of 4 years Adelaide plays Port Adelaide 8 times and every other team 5 times.
Cavvy
Guest
An equitable system within the 22 round paradigm is just to rotate who teams play twice so that in a 3.5 year period every team has played every other team twice in a season. There will be ups and downs in the quality of opposition over that time (I.e team 1 might be much better in year 1 than they are in year 3/4 but that's just pot luck when your team plays team 1 in the cycle). Where possible you could try to weight it (maybe in year one and two of the cycle) so the mix of teams any club plays twice comes from across the ladder but there will always be some "luck of the draw" at least it will be actual luck not manipulated by the AFL.
Cavvy
Guest
Terrible idea, you don't even have a solution for the point of the bottom six playing and it's a logistical pipe dream anyway. Maybe could have got to the point a bit quicker too. "More words "doesn't always equate to "better article". Good On you for trying anyway
Davico
Guest
Try crashing into a 120kg guy non stop for 80 min and tell me that they don't need the same recovery time!!!
MomentbyMoment
Guest
I don't think we should compare codes. I haven't played AFL but I spent 12 years playing rugby union with the odd league game thrown in. I can ensure you that rugby league is a brutal sport. You have a constant clash of bodies which is totally bone crushing. I wouldn't recommend it on my worst enemy.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I agree there is some tweaking to do Gene. But basing that (as some do, not yourself) as reasons for success is an argument I am over.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
In terms of Aerobic energy system, that is what I mean. Physically demanding was poor choice of words. This is the major energy system used for any period of physical activity for 30mins + . II honestly thought NRL had more byes, it feels like it. But the period of time for both sports is a aginificant difference. We are talking 20% less time for NRL given time period of 80 mins vs about 120mins with all the extra time in AFL. NRL makes more use of the anaerobic and aerobic system which do not require as much recovery time. NRL have different some different injuries due to the (often, especially for forwards) contact.
Cat
Roar Guru
"The draw will have inevitable inequities" Agreed but thats not the issue, the issue is the inequalities built into the draw to start with (6 day breaks, number of interstate trips, who is too important to play at certain grounds etc.)
Momentbymoment
Guest
I think it's time to understand that not every factor can be controlled in sport. There will ALWAYS be umpire mistakes and sometimes teams will get a flow on effect - but it's not a conspiracy. The draw will have inevitable inequities. No one expected Carlton or Richmond to drop so far this season and no one can predict the form of North at anytime - but it is not a conspiracy. I wonder if the history of back room deals and boys club decision making is having an effect on the way ordinary punters view the game. There really should not be so much angst about such a simple game.
Nick Inatey
Guest
Many of the code hoppers? You mean the two? AFL and NRL both have two byes. NRL is an equally as physically demanding, just in a different manner. Ask the victims of Karmichael Hunt's hip and shoulder checks in the AFL. In, a player like Cameron Smith, may find himself playing up to 30 games a season (24 round robin, 3 state of origin and 3 finals). An AFL player will play 26. Don't diss the physically demanding nature of any sport buddy. The NRL has a 26 week season as a remnant of when they had the perfect 14 team comp. No other reason than that. They used to have a 22 round season just like the AFL.
Davico
Guest
2 byes and alot more contact. How is it less demanding?
Davico
Guest
Thanks but no thanks. Know you are trying to get ahead but this is just sad
Davico
Guest
I concur
Robert Bryce
Guest
An equitable fixture would be each team playing the other teams twice and that's not about to happen. As Axle says, the number of teams needs to be cut but I guess that won't ever happen either. So we need to get over it and move on, and equitable draw just can't happen.
Momentbymoment
Guest
Jack - the NRL requires less aerobic fitness but I would hardly call it less physically demanding. My vote would be for a longer season - or any change really - to stop the constant bickering about the draw.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I like International Rules but that is because I am an optimist that believes we have a chance of winning... I do like seeing a different game though, and considering, as far as I know, Gaellic Football is not broadcast to Australia it is as close as I will get. When I save up might go over and watch one at Croke Park. Until then...
Axle an the guru
Guest
I loved SOO involving VIC,SA&WA,never got into that ALLIES rubbish. I would much rather SOO Jack over that hybrid game,i dont get into that at all.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I personally would like State of Origin games but foresee it as highly difficult to implement. It over International Rules anyway... FT